Legal pot and legal cartels

The argument for legalization runs like this: “the flow of money to the cartels is dramatically slowed down” by legalization.

Let me posit the following:

Suppose you have an organization that produces a commodity, but they can not legally market commodity in the area where its main consumers reside. Up to now the organization has been marketing the product through a black market. The business, up to now, is carried on a cash-only basis.

The organization has vast wealth at its disposal, in the billions of dollars, and therefore, a ready means for access to the best legal and business advice money can provide.

Now the previously closed market is open for legal business. Users can legally purchase it and pay with the credit cards. The target market is in an area where it is relatively easy (at least easier than in the organization’s country) to open a business. Banks welcome profitable businesses.

Do you really believe the organization is going to stay away? To not buy a bank? To not have lobbyists in Washington?

— Production and distribution of commodities (including those once considered drugs, like sugar, chocolate and coffee) by European and U.S. cartels — as it was since the 17th century and still is to a large extent, is a rather one-sided deal. Given the … ahem… high demand for this particular commodity north of the Rio Bravo del Norte, it may be that the “real” issue up there is who controls the profits. If it was some U.S. concern, would anyone up there think it was so bad? You got somethin’ against free trade (or foreign capitalists investing in banks and lobbyists)?

@dnice same argument applied to the prohibition of alcohol, didn’t it? So now drunk drivers kill, and frats kill their members with alcohol poisoning. I guess the biggest difference is alcoholics have a more widely known private rehab system, but healthcare is really a separate issue, agreed?